Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court of India directed all States and Union Territories to strictly implement installation of vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons in public transport vehicles, with Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan stressing passenger safety, especially for women, senior citizens and children.
In a significant move aimed at strengthening public transport safety across the country, the Supreme Court of India directed all States and Union Territories to strictly implement the mandatory requirement of installing vehicle location tracking devices (VLTDs) and panic buttons in taxis and other public service vehicles.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan highlighted that such safety mechanisms are crucial for protecting passengers, especially women, senior citizens and children, who are often vulnerable while using public transport services.
The Court expressed serious concern over the poor implementation of safety norms and observed that it was alarming that less than one per cent of transport vehicles currently had vehicle location tracking systems installed.
The Court directed,
“We direct all States and Union Territories to strictly enforce Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by ensuring the installation of vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons in a time-bound and verifiable manner in both new and existing public service vehicles,”
The Bench further clarified that no public service vehicle should be granted either a fitness certificate or a transport permit unless it is equipped with functional VLTDs and emergency panic buttons.
The Court also ordered that the installation and operational status of these safety devices must be integrated with the Vahan database to ensure effective real-time monitoring of compliance by transport authorities.
The Bench observed,
“We also direct all States and UTs to ensure integration of VLTD installation and functionality with the Vahan database for real-time compliance monitoring,”
Expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of implementation, the Court remarked,
“Disturbing part is less than 1 per cent of transport vehicles have vehicle location tracking device.”
Apart from newly registered vehicles, the Supreme Court also directed States and Union Territories to ensure that older public service vehicles are retrofitted with these safety systems.
The Court ordered,
“We further direct the States and Union Territories to ensure retrofitting of VLTDs and panic buttons in public service vehicles registered up to 21.12.2018 in line with Rule 125H of the CMVR to enhance passenger safety,”
During the hearing, the Bench also took note of suggestions that vehicle manufacturers themselves should supply vehicles with pre-installed tracking devices and panic buttons instead of leaving the responsibility entirely to transport operators. To explore the feasibility of such a mechanism, the Court directed the Central government to hold consultations with automobile manufacturers and submit a report.
The directions were issued in an ongoing matter concerning the implementation of road safety measures across India. The petition was originally filed in 2012 by a Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon who raised concerns regarding the alarming number of road accidents in the country and the lack of adequate preventive and post-accident response mechanisms.
The petitioner had sought coordinated policy measures to reduce road accidents and improve emergency medical infrastructure and rehabilitation facilities for accident victims.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has passed several landmark directions in the matter, including the constitution of committees to address road safety concerns and enforce provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In August 2025, the Court had also indicated that it would consider establishing online portals for easier disbursement of compensation to victims of motor accidents.
In October last year, the apex court had directed all States and Union Territories to frame rules for pedestrian safety and regulate the movement of non-motorised vehicles such as bicycles and hand carts in public areas.
Apart from the issue of vehicle tracking devices, the Bench also dealt with several other pending road safety concerns during Wednesday’s hearing.
On the issue of speed governors or speed-limiting devices (SLDs), the Court criticised multiple States for failing to submit compliance reports regarding the installation of such devices in vehicles. The Bench reiterated that manufacturers are legally obligated to install speed-limiting mechanisms in vehicles.
The Court said,
“By the next date, all States shall place their reports on record. All manufacturers are bound to fit SLDs. State Governments shall file fresh comprehensive affidavits setting out due SLD compliance, duly supported by Vahan/Parivahan portal statistics,”
The Bench also took note of the continuing delay in the constitution of the National Road Safety Board despite earlier judicial directions and granted the authorities a final opportunity to establish the body.
The Court ordered,
“We grant one last opportunity to constitute the Board within a period of three months from today,”
The Court further considered issues relating to amendments introduced by the Uttar Pradesh government to close certain pending motor accident cases in order to reduce case backlogs. Earlier, the Supreme Court had expressed concern that serious accident cases involving non-compoundable offences should not be shut down mechanically.
During the hearing, the Bench took note of an ordinance issued by the State in April modifying the earlier amendment to exclude serious cases from closure. However, the Court observed that the matter still required further examination.
The Bench directed,
“We are of the view that some deliberation is required in this regard. Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh shall furnish information on how many such cases would stand revived and what the modalities would be,”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal assisted the Court as amicus curiae in the matter. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared on behalf of the Union government, while Standing Counsel Ruchira Goel represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: S Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India and Others.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES